This is real good stuff, thanks.

So who did it?

I don't like that theory either for a number of reasons. If Mike / Ryan called the Sheriffs Department wouldn't there be a recording of it?

Ehh we don't even know if she was actually raped, they only found bones and no DNA. Afaik the rapeaccusations were only based on Brendans confession, rape and murder puts a much more horrific picture in your head than just murder.

Uhh, yes? If you throw a cat in a fire you're an ******* in my book. If you write letters threatening people left and right, you're an *******. You must have a very high tolerance for people if you think he's a nice guy.

So now we need evidence of something so "small" like him beating his wife occasionally and being an all around ******* before we believe anything that comes out of this woman's mouth? What about the fact she had a black eye and her blood was found in the trailer? (In before: she walked into the door and cut her finger cutting onions)

Since they are the two most likely to have deleted voicemails they could have had something to protect. Being the guys who find the car and also the only ones who had any chance to delete voicemails would shine a light on them. Better to follow instructions and let police frame their case.

Pam Strum was a PI, Who'd thought that. lol

I still think the ex-bf knows more than most believe he does, just my intuition(could be way of) but that guy needs looking in to.

As for Jodi, well shes an alcoholic & have you ever meet a quiet peaceful alcoholic, sure its possible but they are a rare breed. Still it is wrong of SA to lash out if/when he did.
But he could have been defending himself from her not knowing she was just after his payday as they only got together after his release, its possible.TBH I don't know because anything is possible in this case apart from Brendon being a murderer.

Its Just A Pity MCPD coulden't DO IT'S F****** JOB.

I've read a lot of material on this case and I'm really starting to understand the importance of the presumption of innocence. Let's take your question:

- Well again, she said she "thought" the testing resulted in it being her blood, but she did not know for sure. Again, as with 99% of the rumors, suggestion and other accusations surrounding this completely wild story, we don't have proof that it was her blood. It fits her story nicely though.

- If he did give her a black eye at some point, then yeah, he's a POS for doing that. But this is the first time anyone is hearing about this and there is no proof of it. She tells a horrible story of a time that she was knocked to the floor, choked to unconsciousness, dragged out of the house and tossed into the car, where a police officer pulled Steven Avery and her over. Steven Avery denied doing any of those things and the cop's report said there was no sign of physical abuse. The story doesn't add up. The result of this was a court-order of separation for 3 days, not a restraining order as others have stated. Think about the range of significance between the two statements, "She had a restraining order against him for domestic abuse" and "The court ordered them the be separated for a period of three days because although she claimed domestic abuse, the police officer's report stated there was no physical signs of abuse."

I wouldn't just automatically doubt someone making these claims, but I HAVE to doubt what she is saying at least to some degree because it is opposite to the things she was saying in the documentary. She admitted to the HLN interviewer that she lied about everything - so can't we conclude that doubt needs to be cast to some degree as to the accuracy of what she is saying now, especially without bringing anything in the form of proof?

These are exactly the type of statements coming from media that turn facts into fiction and cause wide-spreading paranoia and destroy any presumption of innocence.

Check this transcript from the Nancy Grace show:

This is coming from a practicing lawyer and it's so unbelievable, I don't know where to begin. Have you read the e-mail from Dassey's defense about the Avery family?

What if I told you "you know what, 26 years ago, I was hanging out with some people who I think had a bad influence on me at the time. We were drinking one night and I poured some gasoline on the family cat and we were tossing it over a fire, not exactly purposely knowing it would catch, but knowing full well the chances were really high that it might. It caught on fire and died. I feel horrible and don't know what I was thinking when I did that. I took full responsibility for my actions, never once denied anything and served time in jail and paid my fines for it and have never been cruel to an animal since."

Let those without sin cast the first stone.

Nobody watching Dr. Phil? He's going over the case right now.

With Dr. Phil on the case I'm sure it'll all be solved quickly

Sorry. Somehow, I was under the impression that people were hungry for every new bit of information they could get their hands on regarding this case. Anyway, there has been some new and interesting stuff, at least to me. I'm not taking notes, though.

I'd say that you are full of ****.

What are you talking about? This isn't some happy go lucky kid.

He's an admitted burglar and thief. An admitted cat murderer. He threatened to murder his wife. Arrested multiple times etc etc.

You can argue about the case but trying to defend this fellow and make him look like a saint is silly and inaccurate.

It's ****ing weird man. Like what is Lostinthesaus's personal connection to Steve Avery. Defending this guy's character is just so wtf and loses all credibility.

There is also no dispute he ran his cousin (or some relative) off the road and pointed a gun at her.

To me, that alone tells enough about SA (and I think the film makers would agree). He is inept at "adult" conflict resolution and his typical reaction to events is to threaten violence.

So, I don't agree the film makers were trying to be sneaky by hiding something as that particular incident was dealt with. The point was made (perhaps because the "background" appears early in a 10 hour doc. that those simple background facts get buried in the rest of the story).

I don't think there should be a disagreement over the basic character of SA. The facts from the doc. alone reveal he is an unsavory character.

Well, I suppose he's a step up from Nancy Grace at least

I've got no connection whatsoever. It's just fun to talk about. Besides, I'm some unknown rando posting my own personal considerations on the subject. Not claiming to be anything more so I never had credibility to begin with. But I appreciate that you assigned me some credibility at first.

- I've been threatened to be killed multiple times in chat on multiple different poker sites.

- Admitted burglar and thief - lol. $14 in quarters and a sandwich. LOL.

- The cat: Yeah, this was bad.

Meanwhile he's spent 29 of the last 31 years in jail, 18 of which were the result of a case run by people who think exactly like you do. The last 11 years as a result of a clearly unfair trial surrounded by the same people that ran the first case.

So tell me, when was he supposed to be turning into this POS monster? In the 2 years he was out, in between meetings with the press, government and lawyers?

Some ppl are just born POS

Why would it even matter if it's Mickey Mouse? Information is information. He's interviewing Peterson, Avery's lawyers, etc. on Monday, btw. I know it's not as intriguing as randoms posting about car crushers on Reddit, but someone might be interested.

- States under oath that he doubts that Steven Avery is innocent of the first crime (rape and attempted murder of Penny Bernstein), even though DNA tests fully exonerated him AND resulted in a match for Gregory Allen, who had already been under surveillance for suspected sexual assaults. Gregory Allen then went on to violently rape and physically assault 3 more known victims while Steven Avery was in jail. All the while, Sheriff Peterson likely had more than enough credible evidence to show that Avery was innocent AND that Gregory Allen was still on the streets.

- States to the media that Steven Avery is guilty of murdering Teresa Halbach AND that if he is acquitted he will murder someone else in the future...BEFORE the trial begins.

- States to the media that it would have been easier to kill Steven Avery than to frame him.



...and Steven Avery is a POS.

Do you realize this this type of thought is exactly what leads not only to totally innocent people winding up in jail, but also to the attempted genocide of entire races of human beings?

Nothing further your honor.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Nearly all comments on youtube DO automatically doubt everything she's saying, purely because they believe SA is innocent of murder (which I strongly believe as well) and thus is innocent of everything else. It's so disgustingly black and white for those people.

Obviously she was exaggerating a lot, and some things just didn't add up. But I don't buy it that SA was an amazing boyfriend and she randomly decided to **** on him for no reason. What does she gain from this? You even said yourself that you felt like she was talking the truth when she said she thought he did it. That feeling has to be based on SOMETHING...

He's (most likely) not a monster. He's (most likely) not a murderer. He's (most likely) a POS. The kind of POS that wouldn't surprise me if he did beat up his gf on a regular basis.

Right, because they can't both be.

I'll give you the first 2. What about running someone off the road and pointing a gun at their head?

It's not an either or. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The Sheriff, Kratz, Unsavory Avery, and many others can all be terrible people all at once.

Case closed. Honestly, though, the entire discussion is beside the point.